On Jul 18, 2011, at 9:17 AM, jahanian wrote:
>
> On Jul 16, 2011, at 10:15 PM, Douglas Gregor wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 16, 2011, at 10:14 PM, Douglas Gregor wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 16, 2011, at 11:31 AM, Fariborz Jahanian wrote:
>>>
>>>> Author: fjahanian
>>>> Date: Sat Jul 16 13:31:33 2011
>>>> New Revision: 135348
>>>>
>>>> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=135348&view=rev
>>>> Log:
>>>> Remove a gcc warning.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Modified:
>>>> cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/AnalysisBasedWarnings.cpp
>>>>
>>>> Modified: cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/AnalysisBasedWarnings.cpp
>>>> URL:
>>>> http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/AnalysisBasedWarnings.cpp?rev=135348&r1=135347&r2=135348&view=diff
>>>> ==============================================================================
>>>> --- cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/AnalysisBasedWarnings.cpp (original)
>>>> +++ cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/AnalysisBasedWarnings.cpp Sat Jul 16 13:31:33 2011
>>>> @@ -723,7 +723,7 @@
>>>> != Diagnostic::Ignored) {
>>>> if (CFG *cfg = AC.getCFG()) {
>>>> UninitValsDiagReporter reporter(S);
>>>> - UninitVariablesAnalysisStats stats = {};
>>>> + UninitVariablesAnalysisStats stats;
>>>
>>> Don't we need to make sure that the members of 'stats' get zero-initialized?
>>
>> Hah, and I see that Benjamin fixed this already in r135351.
>
> Yes, he fixed this already. But it is weird that we resort to hacks to do
> this. Can't the default constructor do this? I am not sure what the
> issue is that this cannot be done in a c++-way (Have not looked at it
> closely).
"= {}" is the correct C++ way, but GCC warns about it for some (unjustifiable)
reason. Basically, we're hacking around a bogus GCC warning.
- Doug
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
